Richard Holloway helps Simon Ellis
to see that love is not all you need

IRONICALLY, I believe, Bishop
Richard Holloway has done the orthodox cause in the Bristol diocese a great service,
following the two lectures he recently delivered at the Triennial Clergy Conference on the
Lambeth 98 theme of "Called to Full Humanity". Evangelicals and Catholics both
recognised in his talks the logical outcome of liberal Anglicanism: nothing less than a
turn away from the faith as revealed in Jesus Christ.

To be fair, one would not disagree with
some of the Bishop's comments and ideas, for example, his criticism of the institutional
church, that it has so rarely communicated to the world that it is a community of broken
people, rather than a community of those who have cleaned up their act. Neither could
anyone fail to recognise that the church has failed to communicated what the Bishop called
the radical scandalous grace of the gospel.

In order to break open that radical,
graceful gospel, Bishop Holloway looked at the parable of the prodigal son1. He took us on
a quick tour through the gospel, and quite rightly explained how the love of the father
towards his fallen son is the model for the love God shows to his children. He moved to
his conclusion from the parable from which his theology is now based: that the father's
forgiveness preceded the repentance of the son. He claimed this because although it is
written that the prodigal son "came to his own", it only meant that he realised
that he would be financially better off if he returned to his father. So we were assured
that the only ingredient in this parable is the love and forgiveness of the Father,
despite the fact that the son does say before he even returns home: "I will arise and
go to my father and say to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am
no longer worthy to be called your son' ".

The bishop's insistence on forgiveness
preceding repentance was the main element of his radical, scandalous gospel and he used
this idea to build what appeared to be his whole theology of salvation and the church. In
contrast, it appears to me that although the Father's (and here I am talking of God) love,
mercy and forgiveness may flow to us in one sense, before we have repented, I do not think
we access that forgiveness until we have repented: the Bishop seemed to be asserting very
strongly that we are fully forgiven and restored before we repent of our sin. Of course a
number of clergy present liked very much this gospel they were hearing, because it put
aside the question of sin! One priest remarked that he now realised that when Christ said
to the adulterous women 'go and do not sin again2', he actually meant, go and do not feel
guilty (about the adultery) any more! Another thanked the bishop for his talk and informed
us that in the liturgy we should all be proclaiming the absolution before people have made
the general confession.

It was at this point that the penny
dropped among the orthodox clergy and they realised they were being sold not even half a
gospel. They were being sold a gospel of 'love' which did not take seriously the problem
of sin, repentance, and judgement. And what of the numerous places in the gospel where
Christ did appear to focus on the question of judgement. For example, one priest asked
'what did the bishop think about the parable of Dives and Lazarus3?' Well, conveniently,
he choose to reject them. And, what a lot of the gospel he needs to reject in order to
fulfil his theology!

But it was not until the last day of the
conference that I realised a great contradiction, when the second key speaker, the Revd
Dr. Rebecca Lyman, a patristic scholar from California, tackled the question of
distributive ethics, focusing on the Jubilee 2000 campaign. We were reminded of the
possible similarity between the Jubilee 2000 movement and the campaign to abolish slavery.
In particular, Dr. Lyman argues, was the church not called to condemn the North's (or the
so-called 'first-world') economic domination of the world? Was the church not called to
proclaim the sin of economic injustice, leading to such evils as hunger, disease and
modern forms of slave labour (sweat shops)? And, closer to home, did the church not need
to look again at its own investments, and to consider whether these were furthering the
kingdom? Clergy at this point then responded with ideas on gestures of corporate
repentance.

But we had just been encouraged by the
Bishop not to get hung up about sin and focus on God's love! The contradiction of the
liberal agenda (and the conference) was once more exposed: that sin was somehow both
trivial and fundamental4.

Maybe it is this relational aspect of sin5
which will convince others to look critically again at liberal theology. At the end of the
conference the Bishop of Bristol, Barry Rogerson, attempted to respond to various
complaints by assuring us that whilst many would disagree with some of Bishop Holloway's
remarks, we would all, at least agree with the central crux of his argument. However, I
believe many remain unconvinced: surely it is at the very centre of things where Bishop
Holloway departs from the faith as revealed in Jesus Christ. This gospel we were being
offered seemed so inviting in focusing on God's love. However, this love did not seem to
have any context, and it did not make any demands. It seems to be a gospel which has no
need of the incarnation, the teaching of Jesus, the crucifixion, or his descent into hell:
it tries to rush straight to the resurrection.

Of course none of us should be motivated
primarily by a fear of God's judgement or the thought of eternal punishment and we are all
called to emphasis the overflowing mercy and love of God. And of course the Christian
faith does not encourage legalism and scrupulosity. However, 'love is itself ordered and
shaped'6. It is not, then, the task of all teachers of the faith, to articulate those
things in us which may, or may not, help us in God's work of sanctification? The Bishop
was surely right in calling us back to remember that the church is a community of the
broken: but is it not also therefore the community of those who seek repentance and
absolution, and therefore wholeness and reconciliation? If not, then are we in danger of
presuming7 God's mercy?

These were Bishop Holloway's own words
from a book he edited fourteen years ago:

"Our grip on the gospel is sometimes
so slack and listless that we are often in danger of letting it slip away from us
altogether. This is why we must constantly listen to the warnings of scripture...all our
standards are derived, not from Christ, but from the world and society. Without knowing
it, we have committed apostasy. We have drifted out to sea'8

Simon Ellis is Curate of Holy
Nativity, Knowle and All Hallows, Easton in the diocese of Bristol. is Curate of Holy
Nativity, Knowle and All Hallows, Easton in the diocese of Bristol.

1 Luke ch 15 vv 11-32

2 John ch 8 v 11

3 Luke ch. 16 vv 19-31

4 There were several other moments when
the Bishop was openly suspect, but the most memorable was at the end of his last talk,
when he was questioned what society should do with paedophiles. This was the only moment
when the Bishop seemed to get really serious about sin, but instead of talking about
repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation, he came very close to sanctioning the tabloid
philosophy of lock 'em up and throw away the key.

5 Which I believe is well put in John
Macquarrie's book 'A Guide to the Sacraments', when he writes in the context of infant
baptism that everyone is 'part of a diseased society and since we are social beings and
dependent one upon another, sin is universal'

6 Oliver O'Donovan, in 'Resurrection and
Moral Order', 1986

7 This presuming on God's mercy was
witnessed recently when bishops assured us, following Princess Diana's death, that she was
now in heaven.